Better the freedom to troll than big brother monitoring every breath you take. But does Google really need G+ to track you? It is quite pervasive on the web and IDing a person is quite easy.

What were those folks thinking about privacy when they designed HTML pages to execute and load dynamic/static content from foreign websites? Isn't it time the user has control over whether foreign websites (like google analytics or addthis.com) runs on most of their webpages (foreign sites should be opt-out by default, not opt-in)? How come this type of issue is never discussed instead of the mindless SJW stuff that usually pops up?

How will gmail prevent the recipient from snapping a picture with their smartphone or just using the OS screen capture keyboard shortcut? This looks like a "Mission Impossible" gimmick or Snapchat wannabe feature.

OTOH, will this affect the market valuation of Snapchat since it's a very similar feature?

The current copyright system HARMS the artist, as it allows rich old white fucks to become the eternal gatekeepers by making endless bank on back catalogs which the artists don't see a fucking cent of in a good 90% of the cases.

Wow, that's quite a leap of judgement. With or without copyright, the publishers/distributors would still screw over the artists because they have a monopoly or at least they used to and artists have little common sense. Copyright law makes it a lot harder to screw artists, not harm them. And the days of eating 80-90% revenue by labels for content sales are over.

Internet distributors like Apple, Amazon and Spotify typically take only a 30% cut from sales. Heck, if they did their own advertising and branding, they could get 100%, screw the middlemen, just like Tesla is trying to get rid of dealers for its cars to maximize its profits.

However, if they are being used by the courts to decide cases, we would have the odd situation where a private party was writing law... and if they were then considered "law" then probably not eligible for copyright.

These annotations are not being directly used to decide cases. Instead they are being used to quickly refer to previous cases and provide a quick summary. The private party writing the annotation is deciding nothing and your accusation is extremely ridiculous. The annotations can be covered by copyright because they are not necessary. You can decide cases by reading the laws and the previous court rulings. The annotations only speed up that process.

Just imagine each and every audio/visual recording from the 1970s and before becoming public domain, what an enormous wealth of culture would become available, for free or a minimal access fee, to everyone. Even if you assume that for a "Creative Industries Improvement Fee" of say $250,000.00 per work a copyright could be extended for another 20 years (e.g. a "Star Wars", "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", or the "White Album" by the Beatles, etc.).

That serves the needs of the consumers, not the creators and we don't want a system where creators are slave servants to the consumers. Go to a public library if you want copyrighted stuff for free. Yes, there's a long waiting list for movies and music CDs. By comparison, non-popular books sit there collecting dust. But at least they provide valuable income to authors.

You can already listen to almost all music for a whopping $10/month. I imagine the same thing will happen to movies soon as bandwidth becomes cheaper. In the meantime, you have netflix and hulu for those needs. I don't get the constant fuss over copyright laws If you can't afford spend less than $100/month for content.

My personal view is that copyrighted content should be like real estate -- you should be able to make money off it as long as you want. No one has presented a convincing argument why real estate owners make money infinitely, but copyright owners can't do the same. My guess is limited copyright times were done to screw the authors (copyright owners at the time of formation of copyright laws). Imagine how many millions of dollars publishers have made from reprinting out-of-copyright Mark Twain and Charles Dickens novels and giving the authors and their descendants $0. Now that companies like Disney own copyright to works, they have lobbied to extend copyright duration times.

And I currently pay hundreds of dollars per month to access and/or own licensed copies of copyrighted material, many of which I could just as easily access for free, thank you very much.

LOL, if consumers like you didn't pay that amount, that content would cease to exist. Content gets created because content creators and businesses want your money.

Don't these annotations provide short, usable summaries to previous court cases? They most certainly are not just indexes. It's like a slashdot summary -- a few condensed paragraphs for an article containing dozens of paragraphs. A slashdot summary is also not an index, and is eligible for copyright.

Here's the link, where you can view current and past Georgia state laws. I'm not sure if the laws are shown in full detail.

I never said they were subjective. While you are free to apply the laws of physics at no cost, learning and understanding those laws usually requires buying good physics books, which are not free.

Similarly, these annotations are probably more human-friendly readable version of the state laws. And like the physics textbooks, you have to pay to get access to them. Blame your lawmakers for not writing laws and explanations/examples/annotations in a human friendly manner.

It's not like we needed another example of why the current copyright laws are ridiculous and stupid and counter-productive but here it is, again.

Copyright law is not ridiculous. It exists so that creative folks can make money off their works. Without copyright, it is unlikely you, or any other consumer, will pay one red cent for copyrighted material.

While Georgia state laws are open source, the extra explanations for the laws, or "annotations," are not. An analogy to this case is, while the laws of physics are available to all for free, physics textbooks cost money. It's also a lot like Unix systems. The man pages give terse, difficult to understand information about all the command-line programs (like Georgia law), but you have to spend hundreds of dollars to buy decent Unix books if you want a good grasp on how to use those commands (like annotations to Georgia law).

This could all change is these annotations were part of the law. That is, laws should not be published without official, free annotations. Then they would be free. Until then, you have to pay the annotation copyright holder.

In the old days and even with current CPUs, one CPU can run multiple processes. But if CPUs were small enough and cheap enough, one program would run on multiple CPUs. Why would you need memory protection (virtual memory translation) if only a small portion of one program is running on one CPU? Answer: you don't.

So TL;DR, he could be right, but only for systems with huge number of weak/limited CPUs.

Uber doesn't own the cars, and the taxi company owns the cars.

This is nitpicking non-essential details. Here are the things that do matter:
a) Like taxis, uber transport has a driver
b) Like taxis, uber transport has a car for personal non-shared transportation
c) Like taxis, uber transports a passenger from point A to point B with a fare similar to a taxi
d) The only thing different compared to a traditional taxi is, instead of waving his/her hand to draw the attention of the taxi driver, the passenger sends a "hail taxi" message through the internet. That's it... that's the only difference. It's internet haling of taxis.

hey did bring something considerably different to the market - the ability to track reviews of specific users, and with it the ability to jettison anyone who didn't behave in accordance with their desires.

And by considerably different, you mean something like ebay's ratings for sellers that is 15-20 years old and that is used by buyers to decide whether they want to deal with a buyer?

A reboot is not a desired option in the middle of a work week when I have no time to deal with a mess up.

Unlike Unix variants, once you load a .exe or .dll in Windows, the executable file becomes read-only (for paging and security purposes). So to update the .exe or .dll, you need to shutdown the program, update the executable and restart the OS if the updated executable belongs to the OS.

"Update" is just a weasel word. We want them to use either (feature) "upgrades" or "bug fixes." Update is just a vague term used to mean upgrades and/or bug fixes. While bug fixes are welcome, upgrades should be reviewed by the user before installation. We don't want useless, bloated upgrades that hog system resources forcing you to buy new hardware every two years.

Here's a more detailed article about the dangers of microwave radiation, including cell phones:

http://articles.mercola.com/si...